2. SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION

- Co-ordinator, Transportation Committee report dated 9 Feb 98

For discussion

3. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PILOT PROJECT

Pamela Sweet, Director, Policy and Infrastructure Planning Division made the following comments:

Councillor Davis made reference to the interest expressed by the Outaouais in 1993 with respect to commuter rail, and questioned whether there had been any outreach since that time to that community. P. Sweet advised there had not and although they were very interested, staff had not had any further input from them. The councillor further questioned whether staff have made contact with other commuter rail success stories in Canada and gained by that information. P. Sweet confirmed there have been some contacts made and staff will continue to do that throughout the process.

Councillor Davis further questioned whether staff had contacted Canadian Pacific (CP) or Canadian National Railways (CN) with a view to their input. Ms. Sweet stated that staff have had initial meetings with CP (St. Lawrence & Hudson), and also with CN representatives: VIA, Siemens and Bombardier. The councillor noted that when the Region initially envisioned this project, the line would run to the Outaouais and P. Sweet indicated that although the Region’s Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan (TMP) recommended the Bayview southerly route, staff would like opportunities for expansion beyond e.g. across the river, down to the airport, other directions. The councillor inquired whether staff would be looking through this process to determine if CP and CN can work co-operatively together with a joint proposal and P. Sweet advised those companies were looking at that possibility.

Councillor Legendre questioned whether or not this project is in fact for a north/south pilot, noting the Motion approved by Council on 28 January 1998 referred to consideration of that link. Ms. Sweet agreed there was a lot of potential for that route, but indicated staff wanted to make this first step wide enough that it did not preclude an opportunity to provide access on the east/west CN corridor. The councillor was concerned that opening it up in that fashion would create a bigger process and could very well extend past the proposed launch in 1999. P. Sweet advised that through the SOI, there may be some interest put forward in meeting the time line, as well as interest in doing something beyond that and staff were reluctant to preclude that opportunity. The councillor recognized this pilot should be done at minimum cost and was concerned about the process getting bigger with a higher cost at the end. P. Sweet assured the councillor that one of the reasons staff recommend the SOI is to keep it at minimum cost.

Councillor Legendre further questioned how long the pilot will last and P. Sweet advised that the successful pilot project will take approximately 4 to 5 years in order for it to be properly tested. The affordability of that pilot depends on how the Region evaluates the project i.e. performance measurements will have to be established so it can be determined whether it is a success. Councillor Legendre noted a similar pilot project was carried out for only six months in Calgary and was deemed a success at the end of that period. He was concerned about the time line quoted by staff because of the additional costs that would be incurred. The councillor hoped the proposal will be widely distributed in order to capture the technology available in other cities. Ms. Sweet confirmed the SOI will be distributed through a very wide network. With respect to the potential members of the Sounding Board, Councillor Legendre proposed that the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corporation be added to that list.

Barbara Ramsay, Public Advisory Committee on Commuter Rail National Capital Transportation Task Force was very impressed with the report and commended staff for their efforts. She truly respected the quality of the document and could see in this document a serious attempt to develop and talk to a process that allows for a "win-win" situation. She believed the Region must recognize the serious challenges it faces and in her view, the overriding concern of the Committee should be the declining ridership at OC Transpo because it impacts funding, the future of the downtown core and the environment, and will have a serious impact on the economical growth of the Region.

Ms. Ramsay recognized staff’s technical limitations and experience with respect to this technology and that there could very well be limitations in the management of that process. She believed it is critical that in view of the acknowledged shortage of expertise, that staff seek a consultancy on this project - a management consultant with an abundant level of expertise developing private/public partnerships. She emphasized that the Committee must recognize that the technical expertise may lie outside the Region and suggested it is important to describe more fully the qualifications of the consultants the Region is seeking. She stated the Region will have no success if it does not have confidence in the process and all potential bidders, future partners and the public must also have confidence in the process; it has to be transparent. To ensure such a process, she suggested creating a Steering Group that would bring together the expertise the Region needs to build, manage and develop this process. This body would be made up of 9 members as follows: 1 management consultant, 1 technical consultant, 2 Regional councillors (members of the Transportation Committee), 1 representative from both the Transportation and Planning Departments, 1 representative from OC Transpo, a non-RMOC representative from the Office of the Regional Chair and a non-RMOC representative selected by the Transportation Committee. She recommended that this group report directly to the Transportation Committee, that it have the ability to review and ratify its own project process and to develop and ensure an effective process of communications.

With respect to the process, Ms. Ramsay believed the Statement of Requirements (SOR) is very well addressed by staff, but felt this document should be developed with the assistance of a fully complete management consultant to ensure that what is being built is sustainable.

Ms. Ramsay was concerned about some of the detail contained within the SOI phase, noting it will take up a substantial amount of staff’s working time. She believed the visioning in the SOI could well be included in a Request for Proposal (RFP) if it were properly developed and created. By removing the SOI from the process, she believed it would shorten the timelines to the point that staff will have no difficulty reporting to Council by June on where the process is and an RFP can be put out to the community before the summer begins and would be two months faster than what is being proposed by staff. In addition, a bidder would better respond with their best ideas when they are answering to an RFP. She suggested that once the draft SRO is created, it should be provided to the Steering Committee for review and recommendation to the Transportation Committee. Following a review of the RFP, any modifications can then be made by the Steering Committee to the Transportation Committee as well.

Ms. Ramsay concluded by stating that while the Sounding Board is a viable body, it should not be considered as adequate outreach for a process as precedent-setting as this. The Steering Group being proposed will allow the Transportation Committee an opportunity to ensure all information is brought to bear in a timely fashion and will ensure what many would think a very transparent process to potential bidders. She urged committee members to give this serious consideration.

In response to these proposals, P. Sweet agreed there were some benefits to having a Steering Committee and it would be worth considering. She was reluctant, however, to eliminate the SOI phase because this report was drafted with a two-phase approach: the SOI then the RFP. She was concerned that if the Committee agreed to go directly with an RFP, it might limit the Region before it could distribute this proposal further. Further, if the RFP did not ask too much from the bidders at the beginning, staff would get back some good feedback they might not otherwise receive if they went to very detailed specifications.

Nick Tunnacliffe, Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner, added that when the SOI goes out, it might not be expressed in the same way but staff have used some of these more detailed points so the Committee and the public can get a sense of the things staff would want considered. With respect to the creation of a Steering Committee, he acknowledged there is a working committee of staff which the consultants would join when they are appointed, so the suggestion by Ms. Ramsay is essentially the same, with the exception of the addition of Regional councillors and public representatives. He went on to explain that this process must respect confidentiality of information that might be put forward in terms of bids and the larger the group, the more difficult it becomes to manage that confidentiality.

Councillor Meilleur proposed that:

Under the Chairmanship of the Director, Policy and Infrastructure Planning Division, a Light Rail Transit Project Steering Committee be appointed composed of 9 members as follows:

Councillor Doucet supported the Motion, because it provides an opportunity to get this project started and gives the Region some independence in seeing it through to completion. He agreed that participants are very reluctant to commit money and time to an SOI because they see it as a very unclear process. He believed people will want to be involved and if that means extending the RFP process to ensure there is adequate input at the various levels he would accept that.

David Jeanes, Transport 2000 indicated this is a volunteer advocacy group with over 20 years experience in transportation matters. They are interested in working with staff and are ready and willing to participate on the Sounding Board. They agreed that input should be received from more than just the potential bidders, because the public has a lot to say on issues such as service levels, location of stations, links with the transitway, et cetera. With respect to the latter, they strongly agree that light rail is complimentary to transit and in no way competes with or duplicates that service. Transport 2000 believes the SOR must be open to committee and public review because time is of the essence and in addition, the terms of the RFP should also be open for review. He agreed with public consultation at the earliest possible moment and that the meaning of the term "at minimum cost" referred to in the Transportation Master Plan be clearly set out. With respect to the selection of vehicle equipment he believed that could be started sooner while at the same time, allowing more consideration of other issues such as route selection, transitway interchange points, et cetera, independent of whether the vehicle is going to be supplied by one manufacturer or another. In closing, he emphasized that public consultation must be incorporated with this process and there must be input from more than just the potential bidders.

Cam Robertson, Linda Hoad, City Centre Coalition indicated the Coalition is made up of nine community organizations and they are very enthusiastic about the light rail pilot project going ahead, hopefully on the north/south line. They support the idea of a Steering Group and encouraged the committee to ensure that there is adequate budget and commitment to move this pilot project ahead on the time lines that have been laid out.

As the representative for the Hintonburg Community Association on the Coalition, Ms. Hoad indicated her community is bordered by the CP rail line and were active participants in the CP Rail Feasibility Study. She emphasized the importance of this being an open and transparent process and that the public be involved at the earliest possible phase. She believed the public should be involved in setting the parameters of the project in order to avoid any misunderstanding or recriminations at the end. She emphasized there has to be an opportunity for the public to have input each step of the way and to this end, she supported the proposal for a Steering Committee. She wanted assurance that this group and any others, are aware of the need to keep the public informed.

David Gladstone, Centretown Citizens Community Association/Chair, Public Advisory Committee for the Airport Parkway Traffic Study distributed a letter dated 18 February 1998. He indicated that the implementation of light rail (specifically in the CP corridor) should be treated as a real planning reality for RMOC staff. In particular, he suggested committee give specific direction to the Airport Parkway Extended Traffic Impact Study that it address as integral to its study of the future of traffic in the Airport Parkway/Bronson corridor, options for light rail implementation. The basic aim is that light rail should be implemented in such a fashion as to remove the need for any significant expansion of the Airport Parkway in the future. He firmly believed that light rail in the CP corridor is a necessity if the objectives of the TMP and the Official Plan are to be addressed. With the anticipated growth around the airport and unless transit measures are implemented, there will be more people driving north toward centretown and he urged committee to consider his suggestion.

When questioned what staff think of the delegation’s suggestion, N. Tunnacliffe advised the basic information used in the Airport Parkway Extended Traffic Impact Study came from the work that came out of the TMP in terms of the travel demand and modal splits, et cetera, but was not sure what else the delegation was looking for.

By way of clarification, Mr. Gladstone indicated that the principles of the TMP as he understands it are that wherever possible, increases in traffic demand are to be met through means other than road expansions. Therefore, he wanted to see those principles applied in the Airport Parkway/Bronson corridor. The terms of reference of the Traffic Impact Study do not have any real provision for how implementation of light rail on the CP corridor could contain or limit traffic along the roads in that corridor and that is what he wanted that study to address. Mr. Gladstone found it disturbing that there has been a resistance during the Traffic Impact Study to look at it that way and there has been a tendency to recognize the growing traffic problem and look at measures to reduce congestion. He believed the Region should look at how light rail can contain this growing traffic problem.

The Commissioner advised that if there is a fault, it lies in the terms of reference of that study because the two scenarios for the medium and long term both envisaged a twinned Airport Parkway. He made reference to recent Minutes of the Steering Committee where there was an indication that staff would be asked to change the terms of reference to reflect a two-laned Airport Parkway and that will have to be discussed by the Steering Committee. The idea of keeping a two-laned Parkway is also linked to increasing use of pilot rail and so it will be another component which will require a change to the terms of reference which staff will have to discuss with the Committee.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen made reference to the concerns raised by a previous delegation about declining ridership. She questioned whether this is an Ottawa-Carleton phenomenon or whether other large cities across Canada or North America experience this trend and whether light rail resolved the problems of decreased ridership in other cities. In response to these questions, Helen Gault, Manager, Planning and Development, OC Transpo indicated that in the early 1990’s the trend was universal and Ottawa-Carleton did pretty well. In 1996, the work stoppage affected ridership, but she maintained the Region is back holding its own. With respect to the effect of light rail on ridership in Edmonton and Calgary, she indicated that their trips per capita are considerably lower than in Ottawa-Carleton. However, she did not believe that meant light rail would not enhance OC Transpo ridership, especially as a compliment to the rapid transit system. In the end, convenience, speed and reliability are what transit riders are looking for.

John Kane, Glebe Community Association spoke briefly to the committee, noting the proposal should include more than just a north/south rail link. He strongly supported the suggestion for a Steering Committee as well as public consultation early in the process. In this regard, the Glebe Community Association would like to participate and be involved in any way in this project.

Darrell Richards, Transport Concepts made the following comments:

It was questioned where the public consultation process fits in with the RFP and the Commissioner advised that unless there is public consultation around the "draft" RFP, there would not be any. With respect to the involvement of the Steering Committee, the Commissioner indicated they would be intimately concerned with drafting the RFP, but if a consultation period were to be added, it would add more time to the process. It was suggested the draft RFP come to the Transportation Committee and this would give the public an opportunity to comment.

Councillor Davis questioned whether staff objected to the suggestion to go directly to an RFP and N. Tunnacliffe advised the SOI is there to get ideas from different components in the private sector which could then be incorporated in the final RFP. Also, it allows time for interested parties in the private sector to form consortiums. The councillor noted that the local rail companies may be approached by various independent manufacturers of the different equipment with a view to a joint bid and felt the numbers would become tainted if there were that many people bidding and CN/CP also controlling the cost in terms of the use of their lines. The Solicitor advised that if they get to that stage, those rail companies will be very careful about consortium and making a joint bid and he felt they could handle it quite well. In response to another question posed by the councillor, he confirmed the rail companies could squeeze any consortium from using their line or could refuse them to use it.

In consider Councillor Meilleur’s Motion, Councillor Davis inquired whether there would be a budget requirement for the management or technical consultant and staff advised that if this is approved by the Committee, staff would go forward with a proposal for those positions and bring forward a report to the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee. Staff is proposing the establishment of a capital program for this project, but with the delay in the budget this year, it is suggested that surplus funds within the Departmental budget be used, in anticipation Council will establish a capital program.

Moved by M. Meilleur

Moved by L. Davis

CARRIED

Councillor Legendre proposed: "That Barbara Ramsay and Harry Gow be designated as the community representatives on the Steering Committee." He explained that Barbara Ramsay is well known in the community and as she indicated, is very interested in light rail. He also recommended Harry Gow because he has been a long-standing member of Transport 2000 and is very interested in light and high speed rail and has a strong interest in the community. Some members believed it would be better to advertise for those positions and give members of the public an opportunity to come forward to express interest. In addition, there was reluctance on the part of some members to approve names of individuals they were not familiar with and whether those people would even be accepting of the nomination. It was also noted that some of the delegations that spoke had offered their assistance and perhaps they should be given the opportunity to voice their interest in serving on the Steering Committee. Conversely, other members agreed that time was a serious consideration and were prepared to move ahead as quickly as possible to appoint the two community representatives.

Councillor Byrne suggested that members of the public who are interested in serving on the Steering Committee could submit their names or Councillors could submit their names and then at least a decision can be made within the next several days.

Councillor Legendre recognized the tight time line and believed the committee should move ahead quickly, keeping in mind that advertising and selecting candidates may take a month to complete. Some councillors recalled that people came forward quite quickly with names for the Disaster Relief Committee and it was questioned whether a similar process could be initiated. P. Sweet hoped the first meeting of the Steering Committee would be early in March and therefore agreed with an expedient process.

As the Committee could not come to an agreement on the principle of the Motion, the councillor agreed to withdraw it.

In considering the membership on the Sounding Board, the Committee agreed to add OCEDCO and the Société de transport de l'Outaouais (STO). Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen questioned whether the groups listed on the Sounding Board will be representative of issues facing suburban communities with regards to transportation. The Commissioner advised that the Sounding Board would include community groups along the selected corridor; however, the councillor felt there could be an impact on other corridors and it is important for a wider-spread input of the suburban communities. She suggested including representation from the eastern (Cumberland/Gloucester), western (Kanata) and southern (Nepean) suburban communities.

When questioned how those names will be selected, Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen suggested a Regional Councillor could bring forward a name or perhaps they could be selected through an advertising process. She then suggested that a request be sent to the three suburban cities asking for a representative and P. Sweet advised that staff have a list of community associations or they can leave it to the Selection Committee to make up the final composition of the Sounding Board. The councillor agreed with this suggestion and added that caveat to her Motion.

Moved by M. McGoldrick-Larsen

CARRIED

Councillor Davis noted that during discussions on commuter rail, there were lists of people who are involved and interested and suggested there may be additional names that should be added to the Sounding Board. Staff confirmed they do not intend to exclude those groups, but suggested it would be better to establish a list of interested people to be included on a mailing list and invited to special meetings. Councillor Davis did not share this view and stated many of those who are interested would sit quietly and take in the information being discussed and then report back to their communities. She hoped at least that the meetings of the Sounding Board would be in a large enough room so that others could attend and speak or observe as they feel necessary.

Councillor Legendre proposed that Councillor Doucet be designated a member of the Steering Committee.

Councillor Byrne proposed that Councillor Davis be named as the RMOC representative to the Light Rail Transit Pilot Project Steering Committee.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen indicated her interest in serving on the Steering Committee as well.

Councillor Meilleur suggested members of the Committee who are absent at this time should also be given an opportunity to express their interest and suggested the decisions for the public and elected representatives should be made at the same time.

On the process of appointing the two public representatives, the committee agreed that a notice would be sent to all members of Council asking for their suggestions for public representatives on the Steering Committee, as well as a canvas of Transportation Committee members to determine their interest in serving on that committee. They agreed the deadline for submission would be 25 February 1998 and immediately following the Council meeting that day, the Transportation Committee would convene to consider the elected and public nominations to the committee.

RESPONSE TO MOTIONS/INQUIRES

4. CLOSING AND SALE OF PART OF INNES ROAD - INQUIRY TC-3-98

The Solicitor Ernest McArthur, provided a brief overview of this matter as detailed in the staff report.

Councillor Legendre questioned what happens with the objections that have been received as a result of the newspaper advertisement and Mr. McArthur advised that if the City of Gloucester agrees to continue the process, they will hold the public hearing and hear the objections at that time. He confirmed nothing could be done by the Transportation Committee now.

Councillor Bloess, City of Gloucester believed the road was downloaded on the municipality, despite it’s objections, and the Region initiated the public hearing process which he claimed his staff had not been notified about. When he inquired about this matter to Regional staff, he recalled that there appeared to be some confusion as to the status of the matter. Mr. Bloess denied the statement in the report that the City had not responded to the Region’s request and referred to a letter dated December 19 which clearly states the City’s position. He explained Gloucester will not proceed with the sale and will not relinquish the land as it has not been determined whether or not there will be a future need for this right-of-way i.e. sidewalk. He suggested the Region not proceed with this issue, or request the money from the sale of the portion of Innes Road.

The councillor also inquired about the multi-coloured concrete blocks at this location and wondered when they will be removed.

That the Transportation Committee and Council receive this report for information.

Councillor Doucet distributed copies of a letter dated 4 December 1997 from the Ministry of the Environment to a resident of his ward. He noted the Ministry states that "none of the review agencies raised any significant concerns with the proposed project...however...I am requesting that the RMOC undertake a monitoring program to assess and confirm the effects of this project and to review the results of this monitoring prior to any other ramps or road work to the Airport Parkway". The councillor referred to the draft budget estimates distributed to Council and noted there is $1.7M allotted for "Airport Parkway Structures", $915,000 for Airport Parkway Ramps, $1.1M for the Hunt Club Road Ramps. He questioned what that money is for. The Environment and Transportation Commissioner advised this is the rehabilitation of the existing structure. The councillor requested that in writing and the Commissioner agreed to comply.